RE: Issue of AIM; was -> RE: UDP Port 5140

["Dave Paris" <dparis () w3works com>]

http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/744139
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/907819

.. just search Bugtraq, CERT, SANS, .. all the usual haunts.  I'm not saying
that it's the worst of the bunch, I'm just pointing out that it's hardly
"harmless" or that it's ability to harm is solely restricted to the user's
actions.

Kind Regards,
-dsp

-----Original Message-----
From: Harlan Carvey [mailto:keydet89 () yahoo com]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 4:31 PM
To: Dave Paris; incidents () securityfocus com
Subject: Issue of AIM; was -> RE: UDP Port 5140


Dave,

How is AIM not harmless?  Isn't the harm that can be
caused more a function of the user than it is the
application?


--- Dave Paris <dparis () w3works com> wrote:
> I don't know that everyone here would agree that AIM
> is "harmless" :-)
>
> Kind Regards,
> -dsp

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lupe Christoph [mailto:lupe () lupe-christoph de]
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 3:44 AM
> To: incidents () securityfocus com
> Subject: Re: UDP Port 5140
>
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks for the many guesses. The guy confessed to
> using AIM. So this is
> harmless. But shame on AOL for not registering with
> the IANA! Are we
> surprised? Not really...
> [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>





---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------